Search results

I didn't get my 90 day update either. Not sure what's going on but not super worried. Once these entitled "people" on the picket lines get back to work I'm sure we will get an update and our trucks very quickly.

Here ya go guys, stop arguing. This lines it out pretty blatantly. I don't understand why Google is so hard to use....

Hey there. The option sheet shows lane centering and adaptive cruise with stop and go is standard on at least the raptor. I'm not sure what trim you are getting, but co pilot 360+ does include both these options you speak of.

im not sure what you mean. The ranger has available 400w in bed (standard on raptor)

I mean, if you want to pay for a more expensive product that is worse, thats fine too. I like the approach that removes the human factor, as it produces more consistent results.

I do not believe in paying people *** *** when a machine can do a better job for far less money ultimately making the product better while making it less expensive to produce, as all automation does.

As am I, therefore I do not belive in paying people $48/hr to put 3 rivets in a doorframe, something that can be performed by a 6 axis arm with monumentally more precision and repeatability, and it won't get sick, it won't complain, and it only costs 150k.

Nah man, unions close down plants. Can't wait for automation to make them a thing of the past

if only ford wasn't union

I wish ford would just hire scabs to work the lines

Because the part number is the same between the di heads and the di port fueled heads. Honestly, you cannot be this unintelligent. Having a single design is always less expensive than having (evidently) at least 3 designs that accomplish the same thing. We know the following for certain: there...

Don't put money on a system that is on the heads for the engine that is what this engine is derived from and is ported for on the heads for the 3.0 but doweled off. Ford doesn't have to put port injection on the engine, it just makes more sense to put it on there because it would be more work...

They run on the same line... but they are far from the same product. Likewise, the explorer ST uses direct acting mechanical buckets, which is a totally different valve actuator than the roller finger followers that the bronco and ranger raptors. Where is that generational leap...?

Last I checked the bronco is not the ranger...

The head casting have the same part number between the nano family of engines. So it makes sense to just consolidate the manufacturing process and simply unify the head assemblies into a single part number. Also, secondary fuel injection does not substantiate an entirely new generation of...

It makes far more sense to run the same heads between the 2.7l and 3.0l which is what they are doing here. The control packs also stay the same. 2.7l gets port and fuel, that was carried to the 3.0 for the new assembly line.

You mean like the 4th gen coyote that shuts down half its cylinders at highway speeds? An update is not a new generation. It's adding fuel injectors to the intake runners, not redesigning the whole engine

Because updates with new models to existing engine head architecture is impossible?

This is your friendly, weekly reminder to everyone in this thread, that if you did not get scheduled, and maintain your reservation, you will get a Ranger.

There should be a small keyslot or mechanical toggle on the inside of the door jam near the lock mechanism that when actuated prevents the door from ever being opened from the inside. I believe this is only in the rear for obvious reasons. Or just discipline your children.